search for: has_variable_vring_alignment

...* (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than > * silently failing to migrate this state) Do we have to touch this now? It's only used by MMIO, right? > @@ -755,7 +768,6 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align) > assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment); > > vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align; > - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]); Don't we need to update rings? > } > > void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) > @@ -949,7 +961,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f) > if (k-&...

...* (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than > * silently failing to migrate this state) Do we have to touch this now? It's only used by MMIO, right? > @@ -755,7 +768,6 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align) > assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment); > > vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align; > - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]); Don't we need to update rings? > } > > void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) > @@ -949,7 +961,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f) > if (k-&...

...t; It's only used by MMIO, right? > > I don't think it hurts to put a guard in here. I'd say let's not touch mmio ATM. > > > > > > > @@ -755,7 +768,6 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align) > > > assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment); > > > > > > vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align; > > > - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]); > > > > Don't we need to update rings? > > See above, I'll call update_rings in there. > > > > > > } > > >...

...t; It's only used by MMIO, right? > > I don't think it hurts to put a guard in here. I'd say let's not touch mmio ATM. > > > > > > > @@ -755,7 +768,6 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align) > > > assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment); > > > > > > vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align; > > > - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]); > > > > Don't we need to update rings? > > See above, I'll call update_rings in there. > > > > > > } > > >...

...failing to migrate this state) > > Do we have to touch this now? > It's only used by MMIO, right? I don't think it hurts to put a guard in here. > > > > @@ -755,7 +768,6 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align) > > assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment); > > > > vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align; > > - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]); > > Don't we need to update rings? See above, I'll call update_rings in there. > > > } > > > > void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) &...

...failing to migrate this state) > > Do we have to touch this now? > It's only used by MMIO, right? I don't think it hurts to put a guard in here. > > > > @@ -755,7 +768,6 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align) > > assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment); > > > > vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align; > > - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]); > > Don't we need to update rings? See above, I'll call update_rings in there. > > > } > > > > void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) &...

On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 21:03:45 +0200 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 04:41:36PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > void virtio_queue_set_num(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int num) > > { > > + /* > > + * For virtio-1 devices, the number of buffers may only be > > + * updated if the ring addresses have

On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 21:03:45 +0200 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 04:41:36PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > void virtio_queue_set_num(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int num) > > { > > + /* > > + * For virtio-1 devices, the number of buffers may only be > > + * updated if the ring addresses have

...return; + } /* Check that the transport told us it was going to do this * (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than * silently failing to migrate this state) @@ -755,7 +768,7 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align) assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment); vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align; - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]); + virtio_queue_update_rings(vdev, n); } void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) @@ -949,7 +962,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f) if (k->has_variable_vring_alignment) {...

...return; + } /* Check that the transport told us it was going to do this * (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than * silently failing to migrate this state) @@ -755,7 +768,7 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align) assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment); vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align; - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]); + virtio_queue_update_rings(vdev, n); } void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) @@ -949,7 +962,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f) if (k->has_variable_vring_alignment) {...

...return; + } /* Check that the transport told us it was going to do this * (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than * silently failing to migrate this state) @@ -755,7 +768,6 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align) assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment); vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align; - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]); } void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) @@ -949,7 +961,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f) if (k->has_variable_vring_alignment) { qemu_put_be32(f, vdev->vq[...

...return; + } /* Check that the transport told us it was going to do this * (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than * silently failing to migrate this state) @@ -755,7 +768,6 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align) assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment); vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align; - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]); } void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) @@ -949,7 +961,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f) if (k->has_variable_vring_alignment) { qemu_put_be32(f, vdev->vq[...

...return; + } /* Check that the transport told us it was going to do this * (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than * silently failing to migrate this state) @@ -755,7 +776,7 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align) assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment); vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align; - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]); + virtqueue_update_rings(&vdev->vq[n]); } void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) @@ -949,7 +970,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f) if (k->has_variable_vring_align...

...return; + } /* Check that the transport told us it was going to do this * (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than * silently failing to migrate this state) @@ -755,7 +776,7 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align) assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment); vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align; - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]); + virtqueue_update_rings(&vdev->vq[n]); } void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) @@ -949,7 +970,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f) if (k->has_variable_vring_align...

On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 02:00:15PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > For virtio-1 devices, we allow a more complex queue layout that doesn't > require descriptor table and rings on a physically-contigous memory area: > add virtio_queue_set_rings() to allow transports to set this up. > > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com> > --- >

On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 02:00:15PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > For virtio-1 devices, we allow a more complex queue layout that doesn't > require descriptor table and rings on a physically-contigous memory area: > add virtio_queue_set_rings() to allow transports to set this up. > > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com> > --- >

.../* Check that the transport told us it was going to do this > * (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than > * silently failing to migrate this state) > @@ -755,7 +768,7 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align) > assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment); > > vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align; > - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]); > + virtio_queue_update_rings(vdev, n); > } > > void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) > @@ -949,7 +962,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f) >...

.../* Check that the transport told us it was going to do this > * (so a buggy transport will immediately assert rather than > * silently failing to migrate this state) > @@ -755,7 +768,7 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align) > assert(k->has_variable_vring_alignment); > > vdev->vq[n].vring.align = align; > - virtqueue_init(&vdev->vq[n]); > + virtio_queue_update_rings(vdev, n); > } > > void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) > @@ -949,7 +962,8 @@ void virtio_save(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f) >...

And yet another iteration of virtio-1 support in qemu, tested with the latest virtio kernel patches. Find it at git://github.com/cohuck/qemu virtio-1 Changes from v5: - fixed stupid bug in "virtio: support more feature bits": we need to define a proper prop backend for 64 bit wide handling... - don't negotiate revision 1 unless VERSION_1 is offered - use 64 bit wide features

And yet another iteration of virtio-1 support in qemu, tested with the latest virtio kernel patches. Find it at git://github.com/cohuck/qemu virtio-1 Changes from v5: - fixed stupid bug in "virtio: support more feature bits": we need to define a proper prop backend for 64 bit wide handling... - don't negotiate revision 1 unless VERSION_1 is offered - use 64 bit wide features